This should include a large nationally representative population (rather than a referred population). Ideally, the sample should be a naturalistic one and not a concatenation of groups known to be either normal or abnormal (because this generally eliminates gradations in functioning that characterize children to whom screening tests are applied (e.g., those with below average but not disabled performance).

Reliability

Information should be included on internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability. Stability (longer-term test-retest reliability) is sometimes included although given the rapid changes in developmental performance set against a small set of items, stability indicators are not likely to be strong or meaningful.

Validity

Includes concurrent validity (a comparison of screening measures to diagnostic measures). Ideally concurrent validation should involve a test battery that samples the same range of developmental tasks measured by the screening test (e.g., if motor, language and academic skills are measured, the diagnostic battery should include motor, language and academic tasks). Discriminant validity studies are also desirable because they show how well a screening test detects the specific kinds of problems. In the case of broad-band developmental screens, discriminant validity studies should illustrate the extent to which the more common disabling conditions such as language impairment, mental retardation, learning disabilities, autism and cerebral palsy are detected, and for mental health screens, how well internalizing and externalizing disorders are detected. Predictive validity studies are not common but are desirable because they reflect how well screening test items and overall screening test performance measure enduring and meaningful dimensions of child development.

Oh please, stop all this validity and reliability and predictive value * & ^ %! Epidemiology is useless, it's junk science. The data are of inadequate quality. Bias and confounding are insurmountable under any circumstances. And even though you’ve done your best to control for all the confounders, there is either the possibility of residual confounding or even worse there is some confounder out there that you should have controlled for but you didn't even know it existed. This is an argument I refer to as the "unknown confounder" argument that is hard to beat.

Off topic, I was single when that book first got big. Nothing worse then a blind date where you try to bring up literature, and your only common point of reference is the davinci code. Then she brings up Harry Potter, which I never read, and she looks like the big reader. Then you try to blow her out of the water with like, I Claudius or Henry Miller...and you just look like an a-hole...

This should include a large nationally representative population (rather than a referred population). Ideally, the sample should be a naturalistic one and not a concatenation of groups known to be either normal or abnormal (because this generally eliminates gradations in functioning that characterize children to whom screening tests are applied (e.g., those with below average but not disabled performance).

Reliability

Information should be included on internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability. Stability (longer-term test-retest reliability) is sometimes included although given the rapid changes in developmental performance set against a small set of items, stability indicators are not likely to be strong or meaningful.

Validity

Includes concurrent validity (a comparison of screening measures to diagnostic measures). Ideally concurrent validation should involve a test battery that samples the same range of developmental tasks measured by the screening test (e.g., if motor, language and academic skills are measured, the diagnostic battery should include motor, language and academic tasks). Discriminant validity studies are also desirable because they show how well a screening test detects the specific kinds of problems. In the case of broad-band developmental screens, discriminant validity studies should illustrate the extent to which the more common disabling conditions such as language impairment, mental retardation, learning disabilities, autism and cerebral palsy are detected, and for mental health screens, how well internalizing and externalizing disorders are detected. Predictive validity studies are not common but are desirable because they reflect how well screening test items and overall screening test performance measure enduring and meaningful dimensions of child development.

Oh please, stop all this validity and reliability and predictive value * & ^ %! Epidemiology is useless, it's junk science. The data are of inadequate quality. Bias and confounding are insurmountable under any circumstances. And even though you’ve done your best to control for all the confounders, there is either the possibility of residual confounding or even worse there is some confounder out there that you should have controlled for but you didn't even know it existed. This is an argument I refer to as the "unknown confounder" argument that is hard to beat.

This should include a large nationally representative population (rather than a referred population). Ideally, the sample should be a naturalistic one and not a concatenation of groups known to be either normal or abnormal (because this generally eliminates gradations in functioning that characterize children to whom screening tests are applied (e.g., those with below average but not disabled performance).

Reliability

Information should be included on internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability. Stability (longer-term test-retest reliability) is sometimes included although given the rapid changes in developmental performance set against a small set of items, stability indicators are not likely to be strong or meaningful.

Validity

Includes concurrent validity (a comparison of screening measures to diagnostic measures). Ideally concurrent validation should involve a test battery that samples the same range of developmental tasks measured by the screening test (e.g., if motor, language and academic skills are measured, the diagnostic battery should include motor, language and academic tasks). Discriminant validity studies are also desirable because they show how well a screening test detects the specific kinds of problems. In the case of broad-band developmental screens, discriminant validity studies should illustrate the extent to which the more common disabling conditions such as language impairment, mental retardation, learning disabilities, autism and cerebral palsy are detected, and for mental health screens, how well internalizing and externalizing disorders are detected. Predictive validity studies are not common but are desirable because they reflect how well screening test items and overall screening test performance measure enduring and meaningful dimensions of child development.

Oh please, stop all this validity and reliability and predictive value * & ^ %! Epidemiology is useless, it's junk science. The data are of inadequate quality. Bias and confounding are insurmountable under any circumstances. And even though you’ve done your best to control for all the confounders, there is either the possibility of residual confounding or even worse there is some confounder out there that you should have controlled for but you didn't even know it existed. This is an argument I refer to as the "unknown confounder" argument that is hard to beat.

Well, the game's just began, renegade!

A very good way to put it, Elm! This whole discussion on epidemiology is just like opening a can of worms -- many people will begin to express their concerns about the inherent drawbacks of the epidemiological studies!

This should include a large nationally representative population (rather than a referred population). Ideally, the sample should be a naturalistic one and not a concatenation of groups known to be either normal or abnormal (because this generally eliminates gradations in functioning that characterize children to whom screening tests are applied (e.g., those with below average but not disabled performance).

Reliability

Information should be included on internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability. Stability (longer-term test-retest reliability) is sometimes included although given the rapid changes in developmental performance set against a small set of items, stability indicators are not likely to be strong or meaningful.

Validity

Includes concurrent validity (a comparison of screening measures to diagnostic measures). Ideally concurrent validation should involve a test battery that samples the same range of developmental tasks measured by the screening test (e.g., if motor, language and academic skills are measured, the diagnostic battery should include motor, language and academic tasks). Discriminant validity studies are also desirable because they show how well a screening test detects the specific kinds of problems. In the case of broad-band developmental screens, discriminant validity studies should illustrate the extent to which the more common disabling conditions such as language impairment, mental retardation, learning disabilities, autism and cerebral palsy are detected, and for mental health screens, how well internalizing and externalizing disorders are detected. Predictive validity studies are not common but are desirable because they reflect how well screening test items and overall screening test performance measure enduring and meaningful dimensions of child development.

Oh please, stop all this validity and reliability and predictive value * & ^ %! Epidemiology is useless, it's junk science. The data are of inadequate quality. Bias and confounding are insurmountable under any circumstances. And even though you’ve done your best to control for all the confounders, there is either the possibility of residual confounding or even worse there is some confounder out there that you should have controlled for but you didn't even know it existed. This is an argument I refer to as the "unknown confounder" argument that is hard to beat.

To date, it has been proposed that the superior cardiac protection provided by carvedilol is not a consequence of hemodynamic variances but rather is due to its additional antioxidant effects. Studies in animals suggest that antioxidant effects may be protective in myocardial ischemia and may help retard the progression of atherosclerosis. Carvedilol decreases nitric oxide, the chemical that causes endothelial dysfunction and apoptosis (programmed cell death). In addition, carvedilol decreases the expression of structural extracellular proteins, an effect that reverses cardiac remodeling.

fortified, winbow has already mentioned what you say, albeit tangentially.. now, maybe she's saying too many things (perhaps to make sure she's being all things to all people as it is the case when you can be nothing to everyone but she does mention the "remodeling" thing you explain in a little bit of more detail...

Don't you think it'd be better if you'd pay a little bit of more attention to the "remodeling" you're supposed to do yourself, Henning?